Certain reinsurers have sought rate increases on certain yearly renewable term agreements. We are disputing the requested rate increases under these agreements. We may initiate legal proceedings, as necessary, under these agreements in order to protect our contractual rights. Additionally, reinsurers have initiated, and may in the future initiate, legal proceedings against us. While this may impact the Life Insurance segment, we believe it is unlikely the outcome of these disputes would have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements.

LNC is involved in various pending or threatened legal or regulatory proceedings, including purported class actions, arising from the conduct of business both in the ordinary course and otherwise. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding verdicts obtained in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experiences of LNC in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value.

Due to the unpredictable nature of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time is normally difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law.

For some matters, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters in which a loss is probable, an accrual has been made. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. Accordingly, the estimate contained in this paragraph reflects two types of matters. For some matters included within this estimate, an accrual has been made, but there is a reasonable possibility that an exposure exists in excess of the amount accrued. In these cases, the

estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amount. For other matters included within this estimation, no accrual has been made because a loss, while potentially estimable, is believed to be reasonably possible but not probable. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. As of December 31, 2023, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, including amounts in excess of amounts accrued for these matters as of such date, to be up to approximately $190 million, after-tax. Any estimate is not an indication of expected loss, if any, or of the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure on such matters.

For other matters, we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We are often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

Among other matters, we are presently engaged in litigation, including relating to cost of insurance rates (“Cost of Insurance and Other Litigation”), as described below. No accrual has been made for some of these matters. Although a loss is believed to be reasonably possible for these matters, for some of these matters, we are not able to estimate a reasonably possible amount or range of potential liability. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters may have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements, but, based on information currently known, management does not believe those cases are likely to have such an impact.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (“LNL”) on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. In response, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which, on September 25, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2023. We are vigorously defending this matter.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action cases that were consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017. Plaintiffs purport to own certain universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Among other things, plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. Plaintiffs sought to represent classes of policyowners and sought damages on their behalf. On August 9, 2022, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The parties participated in a mediation on December 13, 2022, and subsequently reached a settlement. On January 26, 2023, the parties informed the presiding judge of a class settlement in this action, subject to final documentation and court approval. On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement, which was granted by the court on June 14, 2023. The provisional settlement, which was subject to both preliminary and final approval of the court, consisted of $117.75 million in pre-tax cash (in the aggregate for both this litigation and the In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation matter discussed immediately below) and a five-year cost of insurance rate freeze, among other terms. After certain policyholders timely opted out or otherwise excluded themselves from the settlement class with respect to certain policies, the pre-tax cash settlement fund was reduced to $109.96 million. The court granted final approval of the settlement on October 5, 2023. On December 27, 2023, the court ordered that supplemental notice of the class settlement be mailed to a small percentage of settlement class members who had not been sent the initial class notice. Those policyholders own policies representing less than 0.14% of the total of all Policy Claim Amounts (as defined in the parties’ settlement agreement) and have until 45 days after the completion of supplemental notice to object to or opt out of the settlement. Certain of the policyholders who did not participate in the settlement are plaintiffs in Brighton Trustees, LLC, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and Ryan K. Crayne, on behalf of and a trustee for Carlton Peak Trust v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company discussed further below. The remaining policyholders who are not participants in the settlement may bring individual actions in the future to the extent they have not already done so.

28, 2018. Plaintiffs purport to own certain universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Among other things, plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2017. Plaintiffs sought to represent classes of policyholders and sought damages on their behalf. On August 9, 2022, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The parties participated in a mediation on December 13, 2022, and subsequently reached a settlement. On January 26, 2023, the parties informed the presiding judge of a class settlement in this action, subject to final documentation and court approval. On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement, which was granted by the court on June 14, 2023. The provisional settlement, which was subject to both preliminary and final approval of the court, consists of $117.75 million in pre-tax cash (in the aggregate for both this litigation and the In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation matter discussed immediately above) and a five-year cost of insurance rate freeze, among other terms. After certain policyholders timely opted out or otherwise excluded themselves from the settlement class with respect to certain policies, the pre-tax cash settlement fund was reduced to $109.96 million. The court granted final approval of the settlement on October 5, 2023. On December 27, 2023, the court ordered that supplemental notice of the class settlement be mailed to a small percentage of settlement class members who had not been sent the initial class notice. Those policyholders own policies representing less than 0.14% of the total of all Policy Claim Amounts (as defined in the parties’ settlement agreement) and have until 45 days after the completion of supplemental notice to object to or opt out of the settlement. Certain of the policyholders who did not participate in the settlement are plaintiffs in Brighton Trustees, LLC, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and Ryan K. Crayne, on behalf of and a trustee for Carlton Peak Trust v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company discussed further below. The remaining policyholders who are not participants in the settlement may bring individual actions in the future to the extent they have not already done so.

Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company (“FPP”), No. 2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action that was filed on April 13, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. We are vigorously defending this matter.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. We are vigorously defending this matter.

LSH Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as securities intermediary for LSH Co. v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-05529, is a civil action filed on December 21, 2018. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Among other things, plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts when LNL increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates in 2016 and 2017. We are vigorously defending this matter.

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was filed on June 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (“LLANY”) charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the policies. On March 31, 2022, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for class certification and certified a class of all current or former owners of six universal life insurance products issued by LLANY that were assessed a cost of insurance charge any time on or after June 27, 2013. Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the class. On April 19, 2023, LLANY filed a motion for summary judgment, which remains pending. We are vigorously defending this matter.

Angus v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:22-cv-01878, is a putative class action filed on May 13, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that defendant LNL breached the terms of her life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued or insured by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. On August 26, 2022, LNL filed a motion to dismiss. We are vigorously defending this matter.

Brighton Trustees, LLC, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:23-cv-02251, is a civil action filed on April 20, 2023. On June 12, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted a motion filed by LNL to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs purport to own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Among other

Ryan K. Crayne, on behalf of and as trustee for Carlton Peak Trust v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:24-cv-00053-GJP, is a civil action filed on November 17, 2023. On January 4, 2024, upon the parties’ stipulation, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff purports to own claims regarding universal life policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Among other things, plaintiff alleges that LNL breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts and converted property when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. We are vigorously defending this matter.

Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:20-cv-06805, is a putative class action that was filed on August 24, 2020. Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust, seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured’s death. Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest on behalf of the various classes and sub-class. On July 2, 2021, the court granted, with prejudice, LLANY’s November 2020 motion to dismiss this matter. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 28, 2021, and on September 26, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reserved its decision and certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals. On October 20, 2022, the New York Court of Appeals accepted the question. On October 19, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals answered the question in LLANY’s favor and transmitted the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiff sought, and was granted, supplemental briefing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with respect to certain aspects of the New York Court of Appeals’ decision. The supplemental briefing was completed January 23, 2024. We are vigorously defending this matter.

Henry Morgan et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, et al, filed in the District Court of the 14th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, No. DC-23-02492, is a putative class action that was filed on February 22, 2023. Plaintiffs Henry Morgan, Susan Smith, Charles Smith, Laura Seale, Terri Cogburn, Laura Baesel, Kathleen Walton, Terry Warner, and Toni Hale (“Plaintiffs”) allege on behalf of a putative class that Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, LNL and LLANY (together, “Lincoln”), FMR, LLC, and Fidelity Product Services, LLC (“Fidelity”) created and marketed misleading and deceptive insurance products with attributes of investment products. The putative class comprises all individuals and entities who purchased Lincoln OptiBlend products that allocated account monies to the 1-Year Fidelity AIM Dividend Participation Account, between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022. Plaintiffs assert the following claims individually and on behalf of the class, (1) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act against Lincoln; (2) common-law fraud against Lincoln; (3) negligent misrepresentation against Lincoln and Fidelity; and (4) aiding and abetting fraud against Fidelity. Plaintiffs allege they suffered damages from “a missed investment return of approximately 5-6%” and mitigation damages. They seek actual, consequential and punitive damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs. On March 31, 2023, the Lincoln defendants filed a notice of removal removing the action from the 14th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. On May 8, 2023, the Lincoln defendants and the Fidelity defendants filed motions to dismiss, which remain pending. We are vigorously defending this matter.

As of December 31, 2023 and 2022, we had operating lease ROU assets of $118 million and $140 million, respectively, and associated lease liabilities of $129 million and $152 million, respectively. The weighted-average discount rate was 4.4% and 3.3%, respectively, and the weighted-average remaining lease term was four years and five years, respectively, as of December 31, 2023 and 2022. Operating lease expense for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021, was $42 million, $45 million and $49 million, respectively, and reported in commissions and other expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

As of December 31, 2023 and 2022, we had finance lease assets of $5 million and $14 million, respectively, and associated finance lease liabilities of $27 million and $106 million, respectively. The accumulated amortization associated with the finance lease assets was $467 million and $458 million as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. These assets will continue to be amortized on a straight-line basis over the assets’ remaining lives. The weighted-average discount rate was 6.4% and 2.9%, respectively, and the weighted-average remaining lease term was two years and one year, respectively, as of December 31, 2023 and 2022.